Any article that uses the words "wicked" and "horrid" as some of its keynote concepts, has already compromised its own credibility.

The author manages to reduce a set of - one presumes - learned professorial analyses of problem-solving processes, to the level of "hey, wouldn't it be nice if we all got together and talked about this".

So I tried to imagine applying the technique (as described) to an existing problem, Palestine, and how to expand those talks with knowledges beyond the obvious "individual" and "local".

Unfortunately, as soon as you try to include "specialist", or "strategic" or "holistic" knowledge into the mix, you will be confronted by some tough, and entirely legitimate, questions.

Which specialism? Whose strategy, exactly? And what constitutes "holism" in this context?

It would appear to me that doing so would make problem-solving more, rather than less challenging. Determining these additional variables would make that old chestnut about the shape of the negotiating table at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris look like a jigsaw puzzle with only one piece.

The idea of using the same techniques on climate change is prone to the same pitfalls.

"If we are to make any headway on climate change and have the whole of society engaged, perhaps we need multi-knowledge climate change committees..."

But whose "specialist knowledges" would you permit into the discussions, and whose would you disallow? Whose "strategic knowledge" would sit at the table? Whose strategy, in fact? Which also, of course, compromises the "holistic knowledge" requirement. No-one can claim to a "holistic" knowledge of the problem, who isn't also tainted by one or more of the other knowledges.

On the evidence of this article, I'd hazard a guess that either i) it has misrepresented Professor Brown's approach to problem solving entirely, or ii) Professor Brown's approach does not pass the "real-world" test.

Interesting.

Who is an expert?

A drip under pressure?

I would think an expert is someone who is able to make accurate predictions.

Few if any accurate predictions have been made regards so-called climate change, and climate change may very well be a giant hoax, but what other areas would it be desirable to make accurate predictions?

Economics, environmental degradation, people’s health, people’s happiness?

I can’t think of too many accurate predictions that have been made regards economics.

More accurate predictions have been made regards environmental degradation.

More accurate predictions have been made regards people’s health.

Very few accurate predictions have been made regards people’s happiness.

It seems that if someone strays from technical fields, less accurate predictions can be made, and less true experts there actually are.

In the area of sociology in universities, don’t make me laugh.

How can an organisation expect to be taken seriously when that organisation is 110% accepting of mis-information, bigotry, hiding of information, advocacy research, lies, hypocrisy, fraud, double standards, deceit, prejudice and misandry. Or how can universities be totally accepting of feminism, and then expect the public to believe anything from anyone in a university.

Curmudgeon,
I don't pretend to have said anything rigorous above, more in the nature of intuitive. This is online opinion after all, not exactly peer-reviewed, and peer-review's nothing to write home about.
I wasn't recommending Burma as a lifestyle change destination either; it was more in the nature of pointing up the fact that humans are such resilient creatures. You can domicile human beings in the most miserable conditions and they'll find cause for optimism, even crack a joke and laugh at the absurdity of life. The flip-side is that this admirable quality can make humans far to tolerant. Humans are born into harsh natural conditions after all, and have to see to their immediate needs before they can afford to appreciate life's delicious and tortuous ironies. The other bummer about human adaptability is how readily they adjust to glut and satiety, so much so that they're unwilling to give it up, even when it's plainly unsustainable and unjustifiable. In the social context humans can squabble and defer responsibility endlessly, say black's white, or that humans are not negatively impacting the environment. Being short-lived creatures also helps in this regard. I bet if we had a lifespan of say a thousand, addressing climate change, and other sustainability issues, would be top of the agenda. And I bet the minimifidians here aren't nearly so blase about their prostates and their colons..? Don't take any notice of those quacks! Cancer's just a leftist conspiracy to take over the world!
Of course poor states want western lifestyles, Curmudgeon, and they have as much right to them as we do, but there's not enough to go around and we have to learn to share. Western lifestyles (shifting east) depend upon the debasement of the ne'erdowells. But we can rest easy knowing we'll be mouldering in our graves while our children do penance for our sins.

I think you may have blundered onto a plan there Squeers.

I think we should also pay our teachers $70.00, but lets be generous, so perhaps a week. They could then collect tips from all the parents who thought they had done a good job, to make up their pay.

That should get them trying a bit harder, particularly on bullying, & discipline matters. Get these problems under control, & all kids would benefit.

Pericles I am responsible for the word "horrid", from the little girl who was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid. Editors putthe titles on articles, and we usually pick someting we think will get people reading.

By all means criticise the author, but not for my work!

Graham

All of Professor Brown's strategies will fall under the PM's Carbon Tax with little input from Taxpayers given diverse opinions on climate change and future sources of energy along with diverse lifestyles, occupations and income Jennifer.

I enjoyed reading your article nevertheless.